alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Todd Shipyards Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended October 2, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned certifies, pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. section 1350), that to the best of my knowledge and belief:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

Dated:  November 7, 2005

 

 

 

 

/s/ Stephen G. Welch

Stephen G. Welch, 

President and Chief Executive Officer
No. 65682.

#### Lavoie Laboratories, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 60/23206 (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Since the protest was filed more than 60 days after liquidation, it was dismissed as untimely, by virtue of section 514, Tariff Act of 1930.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without

oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RONALD DIBLE; MEGAN DIBLE,

husband and wife,

 Plaintiffs - Appellants,

 v.

CITY OF CHANDLER, a municipality in

the State of Arizona; CHANDLER

POLICE DEPARTMENT, a law

enforcement agency of the City of

Chandler; BOBBY JOE HARRIS,

Chandler Police Chief and husband; JUDY

HARRIS, wife,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 08-16548

D.C. No. 2:03-cv-00249-JAT

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 21, 2009** 

San Francisco, California

Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

FILED

JAN 06 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

In Appellant Ronald Dible’s and Appellant Megan Dible’s prior appeal to

this court, we held the district court abused its discretion when it imposed

sanctions on the Dibles pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, because “Rule 11 does not provide for the imposition of sanctions upon

the clients for the sins of their attorney.” Dible v. City of Chandler, 242 Fed.

App’x 473, 474 (9th Cir. 2007). After our mandate issued in that appeal, the

district court granted Appellees’ Rule 60(a) motion to correct a clerical mistake in

the judgment and ordered the clerk of the court to vacate its prior judgment and

enter an amended judgment imposing the Rule 11 sanctions against the Dibles’

counsel. The Dibles now appeal the district court’s order granting Appellees’ Rule

60(a) motion. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the

motion, we affirm.

The record clearly reflects the district court originally intended to impose the

Rule 11 sanctions against the Dibles’ counsel and not against the Dibles

personally. The district court stated in its July 8, 2005, order that it was imposing

the sanctions “against Plaintiffs’ counsel” and set forth in detail counsel’s conduct

that supported the sanction award. Therefore, the district court’s subsequent

mistake in its February 13, 2006, order directing the clerk of the court to enter

judgment on the sanction award “against Plaintiffs” was the type of “clerical
3

mistake” correctable under Rule 60(a). See Blanton v. Anzalone, 813 F.2d 1574,

1577 (9th Cir. 1987).

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 32.2


                  CERTIFICATION OF CO-CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


    Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a)
and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), I, Thomas
Brandt, Executive Vice President and Co-Chief Executive Officer of Trans-Lux
Corporation, do hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge that:

    (1) The Registrant's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
March 31, 2007 being filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

    (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.

    This Certification accompanies this Form 10-Q as an exhibit, but shall not
be deemed as having been filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 or as a separate disclosure document of the Registrant or
the certifying officer.



                                       /s/ Thomas Brandt
                                       -----------------------------
Date:  May 18, 2007                    Thomas Brandt
                                       Executive Vice President and
                                       Co-Chief Executive Officer
Case: 2:12-cv-01044-EAS-MRA Doc #: 14 Filed: 07/25/13 Page: 1 of 9  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:12-cv-01044-EAS-MRA Doc #: 14 Filed: 07/25/13 Page: 2 of 9  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:12-cv-01044-EAS-MRA Doc #: 14 Filed: 07/25/13 Page: 3 of 9  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:12-cv-01044-EAS-MRA Doc #: 14 Filed: 07/25/13 Page: 4 of 9  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:12-cv-01044-EAS-MRA Doc #: 14 Filed: 07/25/13 Page: 5 of 9  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:12-cv-01044-EAS-MRA Doc #: 14 Filed: 07/25/13 Page: 6 of 9  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:12-cv-01044-EAS-MRA Doc #: 14 Filed: 07/25/13 Page: 7 of 9  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:12-cv-01044-EAS-MRA Doc #: 14 Filed: 07/25/13 Page: 8 of 9  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:12-cv-01044-EAS-MRA Doc #: 14 Filed: 07/25/13 Page: 9 of 9  PAGEID #: <pageID>

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2015-05-11T12:29:30-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
(Reap. Dec. 8960)

Entry No. 777281, etc.

#### Vandegrift Forwarding Co., Inc. *v.*United States

(Decided August 9, 1957)

*John D. Rode*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Mollison, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule *“A,”*hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the plaintiff and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States, subject to the approval of the Court,

> 1. That the merchandise consists of marble slabs exported from the Federal Republic of West Germany.

> 2. That on or about the date of exportation of the merchandise the subject of the appeals enumerated above there was no foreign, export, or United States value for such or similar merchandise and that the costs of production for such merchandise were the invoice unit values stated in Deutsche marks plus the costs of packing as invoiced.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appeals herein may be submitted on this stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values were the invoice unit values stated in deutschemarks, plus the costs of packing, as invoiced.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
**Exhibit 32.1**

** **

** CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002**

** **

In connection with the annual report of JA Energy (the"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended August 31, 2016, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the "Report"), I, Barry Hall, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,to the best of my knowledge and belief, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:

 

 

Date: December 14, 2016

 

***/s/        Barry Hall                                                                               ***

Name:   Barry Hall

Title:     Chairman, Chief ExecutiveOfficer and Chief Financial Officer

              (PrincipalExecutive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

Pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned certifies that (1) thisQuarterly Report of Cruzan International, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (this “Report”), fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,as amended, and (2) the information contained in this Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company asof June 30, 2005 and its results of operations for the period ended June 30,2005.

 
|                        |   /s/   Ezra Shashoua                       |   |
|----------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                             | Ezra Shashoua                                         |   |
|                             | Executive Vice President  and Chief Financial Officer |
|                             |                                                  |
|                             |                                                  |
| Date:  August 11, 2005 |                                                  |
|                                  |                                                       |        |  |

 

1

----
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 31 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. J. RES. 31

    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
             relative to require a balancing of the budget.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 15, 2006

  Mr. Allen introduced the following joint resolution; which was read 
          twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
             relative to require a balancing of the budget.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission by the Congress:

                              ``Article --

    ``Section 1. The budget deficit of the United States for the fiscal 
year in which this article is ratified shall be reduced in the 
succeeding fiscal years such that the budget deficit, if any, in the 
succeeding fiscal years may not exceed the indicated amount of the 
budget deficit for the fiscal year in which this article is ratified, 
as follows:
            ``(1) For the first fiscal year beginning after the 
        ratification of this article, 80 percent.
            ``(2) For the second fiscal year beginning after the 
        ratification of this article, 60 percent.
            ``(3) For the third fiscal year beginning after the 
        ratification of this article, 40 percent.
            ``(4) For the fourth fiscal year beginning after the 
        ratification of this article, 20 percent.
    ``Section 2. After the fourth fiscal year beginning after 
ratification of this article, expenditures by the United States may not 
exceed receipts for any given fiscal year unless such excess 
expenditures are authorized by a law approved by three-fifths of each 
House of the Congress.
    ``Section 3. Congress may waive the provisions of this article for 
any fiscal year in which a declaration of war is in effect. Any deficit 
that occurs as a result of such war shall be reduced within 5 fiscal 
years following the war according to the procedures set forth in 
section 1 of this article.
    ``Section 4. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article 
by appropriate legislation.''.
                                 <all>
```
(logo)Rialto 

         CAPITAL

 

 

**2017 AnnualStatement of Servicer Compliance (Item 1123)**

 

           Pooling and Servicing Agreement (the “Pooling and Servicing Agreement”) datedas of  February 1, 2016 by and among Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Securities,Inc., as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association as Master Servicer,Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC as Special Servicer, Park Bridge Lender ServicesLLC as Operating Advisor and Asset Representations Reviewer, Wells Fargo Bank,National Association as Certificate Administrator, and Wilmington Trust,National Association as Trustee relating to the Wells Fargo Commercial MortgageTrust 2016-NXS5, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series2016-NXS5 **(WFCM 2016-NXS5)**

 

Theundersigned, a duly authorized officer of Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, asspecial servicer (the “Special Servicer”) herein certifies to the following:

 

1.       Allservicing activities and performance of such servicing activities under thePooling and Servicing Agreement are performed on behalf of the SpecialServicer.

 

2.       Areview of the servicing activities and performance by the Special Servicer forthe period of January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017 (the “Reporting Period”) inaccordance with the Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been conducted under mysupervision.

 

3.       To thebest of my knowledge, based on such review, the Special Servicer has fulfilledall of its obligations under the terms of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement,in all material respects for the Reporting Period and if there has been afailure to fulfill any such obligations in any material respect, each failureand the nature and status thereof has been specifically identified herein.

 

 

Certifiedby:  /s/  Adam Singer

AdamSinger, Managing Director

 

Date: March 1, 2018
# C_2009017EN.01S00301.xml

| 23.1.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 17/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.1.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 17/s3

---

NOTE TO THE READER

NOTE TO THE READER

The institutions have decided no longer to quote in their texts the last amendment to cited acts.

Unless otherwise indicated, references to acts in the texts published here are to the version of those acts currently in force.

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

Joshua Copenhaver Nelson,

Plaintiff,

v. Case NO. 2:12-cv-1167

Wanza Jackson, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER

This matter is before the court for consideration of the

report and recommendation of the magistrate judge filed on August

19, 2014 (Doc. 97). Following an extensive discussion of

plaintiff’s claims, the magistrate judge recommended that the

motion for summary judgment filed by Wanza Jackson, Steven Cahill,

and William Gallaer (Doc. 92) be granted.

The report and recommendation specifically advised the parties

that the failure to object to the report and recommendation within

fourteen days “will result in a waiver of the right to de novo

review by the District Judge and of the right to appeal the

decision of the District Court adopting the Report and

Recommendation.” Doc. 97, p. 35. The time period for filing

objections to the report and recommendation has expired, and no

objections have been filed.

The court has reviewed the report and recommendation, and

hereby adopts and affirms the report and recommendation (Doc. 97). 

Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment filed by defendants

Wanza Jackson, Steven Cahill, and William Gallaer (Doc. 92) is

granted. The clerk shall enter judgment in favor of the defendants

on all of plaintiff’s claims in accordance with this order and the

Case: 2:12-cv-01167-JLG-NMK Doc #: 99 Filed: 09/18/14 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
court’s order of August 20, 2013 (Doc. 48).

It is so ordered.

Date: September 18, 2014 s/James L. Graham 

 James L. Graham

 United States District Judge

2

Case: 2:12-cv-01167-JLG-NMK Doc #: 99 Filed: 09/18/14 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
# C_2008267EN.01002801.xml

| 22.10.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 267/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.10.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 267/28

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

21 October 2008

(2008/C 267/02)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3184 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 133,06 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4542 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,777 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,992 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5224 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 305 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,894 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,308 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 274,78 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7093 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,6105 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,629 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 30,467 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,0483 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,928 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5928 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,2233 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 2,1557 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,9527 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 769,27 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 13,7212 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,0096 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,18 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 979,65 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,65 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 63,76 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 35,0523 |
| THB | Thai baht | 45,313 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,8372 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,4029 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3184

JPY

Japanese yen

133,06

DKK

Danish krone

7,4542

GBP

Pound sterling

0,777

SEK

Swedish krona

9,992

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5224

ISK

Iceland króna

305

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,894

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,308

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

274,78

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7093

PLN

Polish zloty

3,6105

RON

Romanian leu

3,629

SKK

Slovak koruna

30,467

TRY

Turkish lira

2,0483

AUD

Australian dollar

1,928

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5928

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,2233

NZD

New Zealand dollar

2,1557

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,9527

KRW

South Korean won

1 769,27

ZAR

South African rand

13,7212

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,0096

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,18

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 979,65

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,65

PHP

Philippine peso

63,76

RUB

Russian rouble

35,0523

THB

Thai baht

45,313

BRL

Brazilian real

2,8372

MXN

Mexican peso

17,4029

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
# C_2013225EN.01006602.xml

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/66 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/66

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2013 — Kastenholz v OHIM — Qwatchme (Watch dials)

(Case T-68/11) (1)

1

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Community design representing watch dials - Earlier unregistered designs - Ground for invalidity - Novelty - Articles 4, 5 and 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Individual character - Different overall impression - Articles 4, 6 and 25(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002 - Earlier copyright - Article 25(1)(f) of Regulation No 6/2002)

2013/C 225/146

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Erich Kastenholz (Troisdorf, Germany) (represented by: L. Acker, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented: initially by S. Hanne, and subsequently by D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Qwatchme A/S (Løsning, Denmark) (represented by: M. Zöbisch, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 November 2010 (Case R 1086/2009-3) concerning invalidity proceedings between Erich Kastenholz and Qwatchme A/S.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 2. | Orders Mr Erich Kastenholz to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Erich Kastenholz to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 113, 9.4.2011.

1

---